[psych-hr] Binton Lykes comments on IPEDEHP Case

First and foremost, let me say how very exciting it has been to read
this case study and to be able to reflect upon my own work in
Guatemala, particularly my work within the last six years with a
women's group and later organization of Maya women in rural
Guatemala. I congratulate the folks of IPEDEHP on their ongoing work,
and Marcy on a very readable summary of it. My reflections and
comments draw heavily on this work, and on previous dozen years of
work with a rural health organization that did training of
preventative health care workers in mostly rural areas. I say this as
I often found myself asking questions that may emerge more from those
experiences than from the realities of Peru. My understanding of Peru
comes from what one might read in popular and left presses,
publications from solidarity groups, and having worked with several
Peruvian psychologists in human rights networks and in a recent
publication on liberation psychology for the American Psychologist.

I look forward to Marcy's summary/synthesis of our multiple
reflections and a chance to "dialogue" with others. (I realize that I
refer to page numbers below - they come from my copy of the summary,
which I realize now may have no reference to the same page on someone
else's. I have tried to include some other indicator of text - SORRY).

- Although one has limited space to give background to any case study
I found the material offered particularly limited. The description
fails to even acknowledge the structural contradictions (class, race,
etc) within Peruvian society that gave rise to armed resistance. It
suggests that violence = terrorism, thereby situating the key actors
within the case - IPEDEHP - within a liberal analysis of the
macro-social problems which frame their human rights. This may be how
they would want to be situated. HOWEVER I think that some of the
important macro issues should be mentioned, particularly given Peru's
status as exemplar within IMF driven macro-economic reforms, its
indigenous struggles, etc. Within this context, several additional
points: A. the description of liberation theology as a "movement"
addressing the needs of the world's poor." Again, space is limited BUT
it seems to me that this turn of phrase sounds deeply like
"assistentialismo/assistentialism" and my understanding of liberation
theology is quite different from this. If one has only a few words I
would think that minimally one would say "preferential option for the
poor." B. I wondered what might be meant by describing IPEDEHP's
training as taking place within "a neutral atmosphere" (see page 2). I
think particularly of Martin-Baro's discussion of "bias" and the need
to describe clearly the political nature of liberation psychology,
work is situated within a liberationist tradition, which the case
study seems to be suggesting, then I think the introduction needs to
more clearly articulate that trajectory. IF, for political reasons
within Peru today this is not advisable then I would suggest that the
intro should not make claims to be situated within a liberationist
trajectory.

- I was very interested in the mix of folks who participate in any
given training . If I read the case material correctly you have folks
of very differing ages, races, languages, educational levels,
geographical backgrounds, etc. within each group. I found myself eager
to know how this worked? How did the facilitators deal with, for
example, multiple languages? Or the fact that some participants could
not read and write? I have worked in such groups in Guatemala and it
has been doable for very short periods of time but for longer training
experiences I have found it almost impossible. Folks are frustrated in
all directions. So I would be eager to know whether or not there were
any frustrations and if so what they were and how they were
confronted, etc. That raises a more general comment about the "hard
side" of this work. I would have liked to have seen some examples of
"when things did not work" or "were not satisfactory" for folks. In my
experience it is hard to write about that part of our work but it is
often the most informative. One of the most exciting books for
students whom I have had in class for Participatory Action Research
has been Patricia Maguire's book, published on the basis of her
dissertation, precisely because she shares the parts that did not work
as she had hoped, etc. They are implied here - for example, in the men
who did not report certain things that most of the women did,
etc. However we all know how risky it is to interpret "missing data!"
- Under special features "the practice of human rights and democracy
begins from within." I found this to be particularly provocative as a
statement. It reminded me lots of many discussions/debates I have had
around anti-racism work within the USA,with folks who believe that
consciousness-raising is the first step, then behavior. Mostly these
are white liberals in the USA who believe this. Many of my black
colleagues have been grateful for legal guarantees, feeling that if we
wait for "internal conversions" more and more blacks will be killed
and/or marginalized. Yes, internal changes are important and I
appreciate the "psychological" aspects of this educational work. BUT I
think we need to be very careful about how we "interpret" (even if it
is just implicitly) causal directions and this seems to weigh in very
heavily on examine myself >first. I think that this is particularly
important when we are talking about human rights and democracy in
contexts where there is not a long tradition of such practices, but I
would also make this point about the US context.

- I was VERY IMPRESSED with the active follow up offered in the
program and wonder if it takes place on site as well as in
workshops. I have found this to be so critically important in my work
and it has been absent for all the reasons articulated towards the end
of this case in many programs in mental health training in Central
America.

- Practical and easy to use tool kit, WOW, I have so many questions
here. I have shied away from such resources in my own work, wanting to
"communicate or instill" a perspective, an orientation rather than a
set of techniques. I employ many creative resources and techniques and
health promoters and local professionals have created manuals for
local use after having participated in the training programs I have
organized AND I have bee impressed by some of it, and horrified by
others. In similar ways I am sometimes horrified by what is described
as "Freirian pedagogy" within some communities in that it is highly
hierarchical and extremely didactic - in some respects due to the
multiple manuals that have been created. Any thoughts about this given
that IPEDEHP seems to be successfully using a "took kit?" - Another
set of questions have to do with the cultural aspects of the
work. What kinds of tools are contextually and culturally neutral to
enable folks to identify their own cultural practices and incorporate
them? I have some ideas from my work but am VERY interested in others.

- I am especially eager to understand better how one keeps these
resources from being "mechanically applied" when one goes home given
that the training is only 3 days? This is particularly true for me in
thinking about workshop participants who have never been in a training
program before?

- on page 5 there is a section on "three characteristics make the
IPEDEHP training in violence" and the first paragraph describes the
impact of successfully taking action to defend human rights. My
question is, what is the impact when folks are not successful when
they take action? Do you have any examples? Also in the next
paragraph, have you observed cultural differences in the expression of
affect? I have found many such differences working among indigenous
populations and ladinos/as in Guatemala and would be surprised not to
see them in Peru. How are such cultural differences incorporated
within the methodology? Also, given the diversity of participants I
imagine that you have folks who have participated in or supported
different sides of the armed conflict. How do you protect folks who
share their stories of abuse, violation, etc. within these contexts?
What kinds of ground rules do you have? Also, I am stunned that you
can "break down stereotypes and barriers of mistrust" within three
days. I am very interested to learn more about how this is done,
particularly in contexts of ongoing structural inequality such as
continues to persist in Peru. Although I have been working within the
same community for more than 6 years I continue to see distrust within
members of different ethnic or political or religious groups within
the community of women with whom I work, and continuing aspects of
distrust - much of which I fully understand and find healthy given
their history - of me as an outsider, a USA citizen, a person of
education and money, etc. This does not mean that there is not also
much trust, but BOTH are there.

- Several questions about the study methodology - I realize as I write
I should consult the full document - but I would think the summary
should also include a brief summary of the sample - we know they vary
by education level, etc but we don't know how many of each group, etc
nor how the 20 interviewed were selected. It might also be important
to clarify how the "people affected" were identified - ie by the
community leader ? or by ???

- I am not surprised by the women's responses, although I must say
that I am a bit surprised that they are as enthusiastic if they
participated in mixed groups, particularly for the indigenous women
with little to no formal education. My experiences in Guatemala
suggest that the latter group of women thrive in all women's groups
but are very timid in mixed groups, particularly when there are folks
with much formal education. HOWEVER, I also know that it took several
years of working with these women BEFORE they ever told me that this
was how they felt! I do find very surprising the quotes from women who
"don't tolerate any more physical abuse." This continues to be deeply
problematic in work within rural communities in my experience and I am
increasingly convinced that without womanist or feminist men who are
willing to work with men on issues of violence and abuse that there is
little chance of much change. In the community where I have been
working there is the full range of support and lack of support among
men, and some move in the direction of being supportive after many
visits, much "accompaniment" not only by their partners but by the
group facilitators.  HOWEVER others continue to resist and sometimes
disrupt the work of their partners and other women, NEVER when I or
other outsiders are present, interestingly enough. And the women
themselves take very different positions on men's violence against
women, with the more evangelical in the group believing that women are
obliged to stay with their husbands, no matter. This has generated
much discussion and creates its own sets of tensions that need to be
resolved in a democratic way. So I am VERY interested and quite
skeptical that you got the "full story" here.

- This is a minor question but I was interested in how IPEDEHP was
able to get continuing funding for its work without ongoing evaluation
of its impact - see page 13 of the summary.

- I was wondering whether or not you deal specifically with the rights
of women, children and indigenous peoples in the education about
rights? that is, to what extent is the program organized around the
complexities of the rights issue? or is it based on the universal
declaration in its 1948 version?

- Finally, I am convinced that folks can't defend their rights if they
don't know them and know that within a country's constitution,
etc. they are guaranteed. However I see this as a necessary but not
sufficient condition for organizing on one' own behalf and bringing
about a more just world. Given the introduction that situates with
work within a perspective of liberation theology and pedagogy I am
wondering what specifically you want the reader of the case to take
away from the perspective of struggles for social justice at the
collective/community level (in contrast to the defense of one's
individual rights).  I was left somewhat confused about this in my
reading of the summary of the case.

Once again, in conclusion, bravo to all involved in this very interesting and
incredibly challenging work.

Brinton

----------------------
M. Brinton Lykes, Ph.D.
Boston College School of Education
Campion Hall
Chestnut Hill, MA 02467-9936
lykes@bc.edu